Is beauty in the eye of the beholder?

Three Seasons

How true do you think it is that Beauty is in the eye if the beholder.

I think men for the most part find certain features universally attractive, smooth skin, long shiny silky hair, and so on. I think the subjective part is relatively small.

For women I think they find certain traits universally attractive, however I think they vary more than men in the hat they find attractive.

Madam_X

Beauty may not be that subjective (although some of that, not all but some, is culturally constructed - e.g. look at women from bygone ages who were considered beauties; different to today) but attractiveness/sexiness very much are. I don't consider Sean Penn beautiful, but Jesus Christ I find him so attractive. George Clooney is quite beautiful and does nada for me.

fishy fishy

most people on this earth can be described as probably fairly average, BUT everybody has some beautiful features. However, real beauty comes from the inside. There is no one definition of beauty. If there was, it would be a boring old world.

fishy fishy

i would suggest that not all men like long hair either. Some men like women bald. :cool:

Kettleson

People of any gender can "look" physically attractive to someone for what ever reasons.

For me, as soon as you really get to know someone's personality, that's the real attraction. People who have an attractive appearance can quickly become very, very unattractive.

Shenshen

I do suspect that beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder, and that applies not only to beauty seen in other people, but beauty in general.

The "beholding" seems to happen in a sort of bell curve, though, with a large number having similar tastes and making up the bulky middle bit, while others make up the smaller numbers of people finding more or other things beautiful.

Personally, I don't see much beauty in what apparently most people would consider beautiful (I'd struggle to name any celebrity I find beautiful), but I tend to find beauty in character that shows on the surface.
I'm likely to find an imperfect face much more beautiful than a perfect one. And I definitely find a heavier body more beautiful than a "normal" one.

The same is true for me with beauty in other areas. Where the majority agrees that a picture of a white sand beach with palms somewhere in the Pacific is beautiful, it does nothing for me at all. But I could very well find a photo of a half-buried rusty can on a beach with grey skies and tall waves in the background very beautiful indeed.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Beauty is only skin deep but ugliness goes right to the bone.

anncoates

Three Seasons wrote: »

I think the subjective part is relatively small.

Sorry to hear that dude. Keep telling yourself "It's how you use it though".

Chuck Stone

Why was the model staring at the orange juice?

Because it said 'concentrate' on the carton.

Three Seasons

Kettleson wrote: »

People of any gender can "look" physically attractive to someone for what ever reasons.

For me, as soon as you really get to know someone's personality, that's the real attraction. People who have an attractive appearance can quickly become very, very unattractive.

Just to emphasise, I'm referring to physical beauty. However if personality influences your perception of physical beauty then it becomes relevant here.

marnie d

Some of the lads I've seen my friends mad after have been butt ugly, but they'd have the same opinion of some of the men I've been with. Definately in the eye of the beholder.

fishy fishy

there are no rules to physical beauty - just because long silky hair is the "trend" now, and people are brainwashed that this is "a beauty feature" it doesn't make it so. A couple of years ago nobody would have been seen dead with long silky hair - it was all afro's and perms.

Again, everybody has SOME beautiful features - it depends on how people look at people. I wouldn't however, listen to the media bull telling people what beauty is supposed to be. People have their own minds ( I hope ) as to what they find physically beautiful.

NothingMan

Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder...

Kettleson

Three Seasons wrote: »

Just to emphasise, I'm referring to physical beauty. However if personality influences your perception of physical beauty then it becomes relevant here.

I would have thought it totally relevant, essential even.

If you are talking about images or picture in magazines, then sure you can make a call on how attractive that persons image is, but we all know thats mostly about photo shopping and make up.

But if you are talking about knowing someone for real, well for me, it's down to personality. A horrible personality can render the most gorgeous "appearing" person totally ugly.

krudler

Madam_X wrote: »

Beauty may not be that subjective (although some of that, not all but some, is culturally constructed - e.g. look at women from bygone ages who were considered beauties; different to today) but attractiveness/sexiness very much are. I don't consider Sean Penn beautiful, but Jesus Christ I find him so attractive. George Clooney is quite beautiful and does nada for me.

Personality is key to attractiveness a lot of the time as well, you can be the best looking person in the world but if you've nothing to say and are as dull as ditchwater then what's the point. There's plenty of models or actresses etc that are considered beautiful that would do nothing for me either, you can see why people would find them hot but other than that, meh.

fishy fishy

Madam_X wrote: »

I doubt there has ever been a time when women "wouldn't have been seen dead" with straight long shiny hair. That's a hell of a stretch. As a person with long straight shiny hair I have never in my life known this to be a "no-no". There wasn't a time when it was "all" afros and perms.

Im talking about the "trends" of the decades - maybe you are not around long enough to remember. You're missing the whole point.

the original OP question is a bit shallow to be honest (no offense).

Three Seasons

fishy fishy wrote: »

there are no rules to physical beauty - just because long silky hair is the "trend" now, and people are brainwashed that this is "a beauty feature" it doesn't make it so. A couple of years ago nobody would have been seen dead with long silky hair - it was all afro's and perms.

Again, everybody has SOME beautiful features - it depends on how people look at people. I wouldn't however, listen to the media bull telling people what beauty is supposed to be. People have their own minds ( I hope ) as to what they find physically beautiful.

Healthy hair will always be beautiful, whereas thinning damaged hair will never be.

Zulu

Taking the golden ratio aside, I'd say that while beauty is in the eye of the beholder, many eyes turn to certain beauties.


...however, as some people have pointed out "beauty" and "attractiveness" are different beasts.

fishy fishy

Three Seasons wrote: »

Healthy hair will always be beautiful, whereas thinning damaged hair will never be.

again, that would depend on the person - I have met people with thinning, damaged hair that were far more beautiful than people with an head full of shiny hair and nothing going on under it.

Are you trying to say that Hair maketh the beauty? You need to use your head rethink that. (no pun intended).

But then again, if you can't see past the hair, then there's no point even wasting energy having this debate.

Kettleson

Three Seasons wrote: »

Healthy hair will always be beautiful, whereas thinning damaged hair will never be.

Words fail me. Here endeth my contribution to this thread.

Lando Griffin

krudler wrote: »

Personality is key to attractiveness a lot of the time as well, you can be the best looking person in the world but if you've nothing to say and are as dull as ditchwater then what's the point. There's plenty of models or actresses etc that are considered beautiful that would do nothing for me either, you can see why people would find them hot but other than that, meh.

I agree mostly with this.
A few years back I would think that page 3 girls were beautiful but unattractive because of the universal view that they were quiet dim.
But now you can get a good insight as how intelligent they are by reading their "News in briefs" caption and it surprised me as to see how clever these ladies were.

Three Seasons

fishy fishy wrote: »

there are no rules to physical beauty - just because long silky hair is the "trend" now, and people are brainwashed that this is "a beauty feature" it doesn't make it so. A couple of years ago nobody would have been seen dead with long silky hair - it was all afro's and perms.

Again, everybody has SOME beautiful features - it depends on how people look at people. I wouldn't however, listen to the media bull telling people what beauty is supposed to be. People have their own minds ( I hope ) as to what they find physically beautiful.

I've yet to find anyone who finds acne scarred skin beautiful, you are over emphasising the subjective part IMO.

I also think people place to much emphasis on culture as to what is deemed physically attractive.

Shenshen

Madam_X wrote: »

I agree by and large with your second point, but I really doubt there has ever been a time when women "wouldn't have been seen dead" with straight long shiny hair. That's a hell of a stretch. As a person with long straight shiny hair I have never in my life known this to be a "no-no". And there wasn't a time a couple of years ago when it was "all" afros and perms.

I wouldn't know if it ever applied to all women globally, but the 70s and 80s were a time when straight hair would get you funny looks.
My mother actually talked me into having a perm when I was 13 years old, in the middle of the 80s. And to my eternal shame, I agreed. Mostly because I was the only female I knew with straight hair...

Three Seasons

fishy fishy wrote: »

Im talking about the "trends" of the decades - maybe you are not around long enough to remember. You're missing the whole point.

the original OP question is a bit shallow to be honest (no offense).

Define a "shallow question". I would have thought my question has some depth to it. It's not a simple yes or no question.

To be more precise, the question is, "is physical beauty in the eye of the beholder?"

I think it's obvious to most attraction is based on more than physical beauty, I don't see much merit to saying attraction is about more than looks as everyone seems to know that already.

A less obvious question to me is the relative dominance of subjective versus objective perception of physical beauty.

If you see a photo of someone you don't know, how much is physical beauty in the eye of the beholder?

Shenshen

Three Seasons wrote: »

I've yet to find anyone who finds acne scarred skin beautiful, you are over emphasising the subjective part IMO.

I also think people place to much emphasis on culture as to what is deemed physically attractive.

I know that you can get yourself scarred, pretty much in the way some people get tattooed. The only reason I can think of for this offer to exist has to be that some people find it beautiful.

Zulu

whoopsadaisydoodles wrote: »

If a man is physically gorgeous I will notice him, if I meet him and find him dull or negative or nasty, I'll no longer see what's on the outside and he will no longer be gorgeous.

I'm decidely average, nothing beautiful about my physical appearance. But I know there are people who think I'm beautiful, they think that because of my attitude and my personality. There are many others who would find me anything but beautiful, that's life. So yeh, I definitely think beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm not having a go here, but aren't you confusing "beauty" with "attractiveness"?

In your first example you have a beautiful looking person who's not attractive,
and in your second example, perhaps, (on thin ice here) a slightly less beautiful person who's more attractive?

Three Seasons

Shenshen wrote: »

I know that you can get yourself scarred, pretty much in the way some people get tattooed. The only reason I can think of for this offer to exist has to be that some people find it beautiful.

I wasn't aware of these people. I'll shift my view a bit more towards subjective now. Of course These people would be a rarity.

Shenshen

Three Seasons wrote: »

I wasn't aware of these people. I'll shift my view a bit more towards subjective now. Of course These people would be a rarity.

They would be in our society, indeed.
I do believe there are tribal societies which traditionally use scars as adornments, so in those societies it would be the norm, I guess.

H3llR4iser

There is certainly quite a degree of subjectivity, especially when it comes to men. I find it odd how some people think men are more attracted to "standard beauty features" and women have more varied tastes; I find it's quite the opposite. For example, a lot of men like "thick" chicks (even if they won't admit), heck there's even an entire branch of pron dedicated to the theme; It doesn't look like many women like overweight men, however.

frank reynolds

there's nothing less attractive than someone who isnt modest about what they've got. if they carry on as if they are gods gift, then they very quickly turn into a total minger.

in short: YES, it's in the eye of the beholder. definitely

Three Seasons

Shenshen wrote: »

They would be in our society, indeed.
I do believe there are tribal societies which traditionally use scars as adornments, so in those societies it would be the norm, I guess.

What about acne scars though, is there any society which specifically finds acne scars more beautiful.

Do you think a marketing campaign could make acne scars or obesity beautiful? I don't.

Three Seasons

Three Seasons wrote: »

I've yet to find anyone who finds acne scarred skin beautiful, you are over emphasising the subjective part IMO.

I also think people place to much emphasis on culture as to what is deemed physically attractive.

No, most people wouldn't find acne scars beautiful in themselves, but a person can still be beautiful with acne scars. They don't necessarily make you ugly any more than other 'imperfections' like a crooked nose or whatever.

Shenshen

Three Seasons wrote: »

What about acne scars though, is there any society which specifically finds acne scars more beautiful.

Do you think a marketing campaign could make acne scars or obesity beautiful? I don't.

Well, that would refer back to the bell curve.
The majority of people find the same things beautiful, but not everybody does.
Personally, I wouldn't mind acne scars. I can imagine how they might be beautiful on some. But the majority of people probably wouldn't think that.

As for "making" anything beautiful, do you think people consider things to be beautiful because they're told so by marketing campaigns?
I think there's far more to it. People find ideals beautiful, but ideal change with society.

Obesity used to be considered very beautiful and desirable indeed, in times when food was scarce and life dangerous. It was a sign of a good survivor, somebody who wouldn't succumb quickly to illness or starvation. It later became a sign of wealth as well.
For that reason black and decaying teeth were considered beautiful as well for a while, as only the rich had access to sugar.
People the world over consider things beautiful that the majority in our society would consider grotesque or even disgusting.
I'm thinking about things like lip plates, Lotus feet, neck rings and cranial deformation.

Keeping these in mind, I strongly suspect human beings to be capable of finding just about anything beautiful, really.

Legs.Eleven

H3llR4iser wrote: »

There is certainly quite a degree of subjectivity, especially when it comes to men. I find it odd how some people think men are more attracted to "standard beauty features" and women have more varied tastes; I find it's quite the opposite. For example, a lot of men like "thick" chicks (even if they won't admit), heck there's even an entire branch of pron dedicated to the theme; It doesn't look like many women like overweight men, however.

Edit: I misread your post. Sorry! I get you now.

pickarooney

H3llR4iser wrote: »

There is certainly quite a degree of subjectivity, especially when it comes to men. I find it odd how some people think men are more attracted to "standard beauty features" and women have more varied tastes; I find it's quite the opposite. For example, a lot of men like "thick" chicks (even if they won't admit), heck there's even an entire branch of pron dedicated to the theme; It doesn't look like many women like overweight men, however.

"Thick" is very distinct from fat. It refers to firm, curvaceous women, usually with dark skin. Objectively a very attractive physique.

Wibbs

Shenshen wrote: »

Keeping these in mind, I strongly suspect human beings to be capable of finding just about anything beautiful, really.

It certainly varies across cultures and times alright. From my reading of various things over the years there are a couple of fairly universal markers of beauty/sexual attractiveness. Clear skin was one. Indeed one theory(along with heat control) why we lost most of our body hair was to show an individual was parasite/disease free. Symmetry in men's faces and bodies another. More symmetrical men had more sex with more women compared to less symmetrical men. Social power in men was also associated with more sexual activity. A couple of studies even claimed women had more orgasms with such men. Height in men was seen as an attractive feature, even among groups small in stature like Pygmies.

In women, along with clear skin while body size varied with culture and time the hip/waist ratio was remarkably consistent. The Venus de Milo, Rubens nudes, Marilyn Monroe and Kate moss have nigh on the same hip/waist ratio. Interestingly women with that ratio have fewer problems with hormonal issues and are more fertile. Signs of youth in women are also triggers. Which makes sense as women have a narrower window of fertility.

People also tend to self select for people who are around their "level" of attractiveness. So a 5 tends to end up with a 5 and an 8 tends to end up with an 8. Where this can vary is with the social power of the male(money, fame, hunting prowess*) so his number goes up beyond obvious appearances.

Even so these are averages and individual and cultural taste overpowers most guidelines for beauty and sexual attractiveness.




*I remember watching a tribal community in New Guinea IIRC, where they were asking the men and women what they found attractive. The men had their lists, which mostly came down to appearance with a large side order of how good they were as mothers, while the women talked almost exclusively about men's hunting abilities and even temperament.

Legs.Eleven

H3llR4iser wrote: »

There is certainly quite a degree of subjectivity, especially when it comes to men. I find it odd how some people think men are more attracted to "standard beauty features" and women have more varied tastes; I find it's quite the opposite. For example, a lot of men like "thick" chicks (even if they won't admit), heck there's even an entire branch of pron dedicated to the theme; It doesn't look like many women like overweight men, however.

Would what a man likes in porn be the same for what he might like in the real world? Even I as a woman have a preference for the kind of woman I want to see if I do watch porn but as far as I know, I'm not attracted to women.

frank reynolds

Three Seasons wrote: »

What about acne scars though, is there any society which specifically finds acne scars more beautiful.

Do you think a marketing campaign could make acne scars or obesity beautiful? I don't.

yeah but why pick out unfortunate circumstances?
people who have these issues are going to be attractive to SOMEONE.

if obesity wasnt attractive to some people, then why are there so many p0rn sites dedicated to the larger lady?

Legs.Eleven

frank reynolds wrote: »

yeah but why pick out unfortunate circumstances?
people who have these issues are going to be attractive to SOMEONE.

if obesity wasnt attractive to some people, then why are there so many p0rn sites dedicated to the larger lady?

I had a friend here who liked bigger women (obese). That was his taste and he wasn't afraid to admit it.

Shenshen

Wibbs wrote: »

It certainly varies across cultures and times alright. From my reading of various things over the years there are a couple of fairly universal markers of beauty/sexual attractiveness. Clear skin was one. Indeed one theory(along with heat control) why we lost most of our body hair was to show an individual was parasite/disease free. Symmetry in men's faces and bodies another. More symmetrical men had more sex with more women compared to less symmetrical men. Social power in men was also associated with more sexual activity. A couple of studies even claimed women had more orgasms with such men. Height in men was seen as an attractive feature, even among groups small in stature like Pygmies.

In women, along with clear skin while body size varied with culture and time the hip/waist ratio was remarkably consistent. The Venus de Milo, Rubens nudes, Marilyn Monroe and Kate moss have nigh on the same hip/waist ratio. Interestingly women with that ratio have fewer problems with hormonal issues and are more fertile. Signs of youth in women are also triggers. Which makes sense as women have a narrower window of fertility.

People also tend to self select for people who are around their "level" of attractiveness. So a 5 tends to end up with a 5 and an 8 tends to end up with an 8. Where this can vary is with the social power of the male(money, fame, hunting prowess*) so his number goes up beyond obvious appearances.

Even so these are averages and individual and cultural taste overpowers most guidelines for beauty and sexual attractiveness.




*I remember watching a tribal community in New Guinea IIRC, where they were asking the men and women what they found attractive. The men had their lists, which mostly came down to appearance with a large side order of how good they were as mothers, while the women talked almost exclusively about men's hunting abilities and even temperament.

While I wouldn't doubt the hip/waist ratio observation I'm kind of curious how the massive fad for corsets and tiny waists compared to hips and bust that did after all last a few centuries in Europe would come into that?

Symmetry and clear skin however do indeed seem to be universal.
Although I find it intriguing how the desire for pale skin which has been documented across continents and centuries recently seems to have shifted to "as orange as I can get it".

And yes, I agree that women see attractiveness not as much in physical appearance as men do. I had conversations with several male friends over the years and was told by each and every one of them that the first trigger in their minds on seeing a woman would be "I'd do her/I wouldn't do her". They all reacted surprised to find that I personally and all other women I've spoken to on the subject don't seem to work quite like that.
I couldn't say if I'd be interested in someone before I've even spoken to them. Yes, there definitely are those who I would know I'm not interested right away, certainly. But for the rest, I'd really need to get to know them a little bit before I can decide on a yes or no.

It's not just financial status/hunting abilities for me, though, and I do think that this particular area might lose significance in the next decades, as women will require the "breadwinner" less and less. Not saying it will go away altogether, I'm sure plenty of women will still be interested in an easy life on offer, but to me personally it's utterly insignificant.

Three Seasons

frank reynolds wrote: »

yeah but why pick out unfortunate circumstances?
people who have these issues are going to be attractive to SOMEONE.

if obesity wasnt attractive to some people, then why are there so many p0rn sites dedicated to the larger lady?

The tread is about the degree to which certain physical features are beautiful and if certain features are universally physically attractive.

I argue that certain features are universally physically attractive or unatteactive.

I think acne scarred skin is almost universally unatteactive physically.

H3llR4iser

pickarooney wrote: »

"Thick" is very distinct from fat. It refers to firm, curvaceous women, usually with dark skin. Objectively a very attractive physique.

All right, I was trying to be polite. By "thick" I meant overweight. A lot. Not Christina Hendricks type (which is actually not even remotely near the overweight definition, whatever certain people might say), I mean clinically obese. You get the idea anyway; I know a couple of guys that actually prefer that over what is considered today's "typical beauty". Bring them to a nightclub, and they'll try to chat up the big girl at the table rather than the skinny minnie in the middle of the dancefloor.
It's also clear that there are many more men who share the same preferences, at least enough to fuel a quite thriving themed adult industry. Nothing wrong with that,let it be clear, to each their own - it would be such a boring world if we were all the same.

Conversely, I have knew a woman that deviated dramatically from the typical "dark, tall & handsome" stereotype, one that that would try to attract the attention of the fat guy in the corner rather than that of the cool dude at the bar. This actually surprises me, since I would expect roughly the same amount of variation in tastes among both genders.

I can't really point my finger on the "why" this happens; it might be due to our genetic makeup, women are wired to look for an healthy and strong partner, they have the ultimate choice and it's not too uncommon for an average woman to find herself in a situation where she could choose amongst a small number of potential suitors. It makes perfect sense for them to be somewhat more "picky" than men are.

Or maybe, as it was mentioned already in the thread, it's more about cultural influences.

H3llR4iser

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Would what a man likes in porn be the same for what he might like in the real world? Even I as a woman have a preference for the kind of woman I want to see if I do watch porn but as far as I know, I'm not attracted to women.

The point is what kind of men, in your case, would like to see although women and men's approach to pron is arguably very different (and it would be off-topic to discuss here).

Of course a man prefers to see the kind of girl/woman he actually likes, rather than somebody that does nothing for him...

conorhal

There is evidence to suggest that we are programmed to recognise some aspects of beauty, research has shown for example that symmetrical facial features are considered beautiful in every culture, these common attributes of beauty tend to be biological indicators of genetic health which we unconsciously perceive, thus, tall, broad shouldered and square jawed tend to be seen as attractive in men and the hourglass figure of big boobs and hips are physical indicators for women.
Then of course you have the cultural indicators of beauty, and these tend to change over time, but they are generally considered consistant with those timelessly desirable traits, wealth and status.
This is why pudgy and pasty was considered beautiful during the Renaissance, it was an indicator of wealth and status, it meant that you were rich enough to eat well and didn’t have to perform manual labor in a field. By the 21th Century however, with the advent cheap and abundant food, the indicator of wealth and status becomes the odious size zero and a perma-tan, because it’s the poor that are fat and pasty, and the rich that can spend all their time in the gym and on holidays.

Legs.Eleven

H3llR4iser wrote: »

The point is what kind of men, in your case, would like to see although women and men's approach to pron is arguably very different (and it would be off-topic to discuss here).

Of course a man prefers to see the kind of girl/woman he actually likes, rather than somebody that does nothing for him...

The attractiveness of the man isn't important tbh, which says a lot.

I disagree that women have a less varied taste. You just have to walk down the street and observe couples. Look at the women on the the thread in TGC and the men in the thread in TLL. Much more variety on the ladies' thread.

frank reynolds

Three Seasons wrote: »

The tread is about the degree to which certain physical features are beautiful and if certain features are universally physically attractive.

I argue that certain features are universally physically attractive or unatteactive.

I think acne scarred skin is almost universally unatteactive physically.

true, you're probably right, but, it's not about universally attractive, its whether the BEHOLDER finds them attractive, and my point would be that people are into ALL sorts, so im sure theres someone out there who would find it beautiful (the weirdo) but there ye go.

sure i know a girl who is MAD for popping spots. she said she used to rub oil on her bf's neck while he slept so he'd get spots she could burst. (gross) but there ye go. people are into all sorts of mad sh!t.

BraziliaNZ

Three Seasons wrote: »

I think acne scarred skin is almost universally unatteactive physically.

I have some under my cheekbones (my really pronounced, model-like cheek bones), and honestly I wouldn't change it if I could, I kind of like the scars. Weird huh?

Three Seasons

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

I have some under my cheekbones (my really pronounced, model-like cheek bones), and honestly I wouldn't change it if I could, I kind of like the scars. Weird huh?

I wouldn't say that's weird, people get used to their faces, the question is, would other people change your scars.

BraziliaNZ

Three Seasons wrote: »

I wouldn't say that's weird, people get used to their faces, the question is, would other people change your scars.

Oh yeah, sigh, never looked at it that way

**forevez alone**

FGR

Beauty is definitely on the eye of the beholder. Sure some people are more photogenic and generically beautiful than others but I've noticed before that the first few minutes of chatting to someone, anyone, can entirely change your first impression of them from when you first look at them.

I'm fortunately the best of both worlds.

:pac:

/man cry

Duggys Housemate

Beauty is almost entirely objective despite a few anecdotal points here. We are animals and attracted to youth, symmetry, white teeth, healthy skin, and certain ratios between hips and waists.

We are not just animals so can love other features when we get to know someone, but we ate talking about the outer appearance, the generally attractive person. Which is evolutionary.